Re: BREAKING NEWS - Goncalo loses libel/damages trial and must pay damages

TheTruthWillOut Mon 04 May 2015, 9:30 pm

@caricature

Abused if far too strong a word. My interpretation is that because of his position and publishing the book only 3 days after the files were released, reduced his right to freedom of expression.

I guess in layman's terms.......she is saying he took the piss. I don't have any idea if freedom of expression can be reduced like this though?

I still think this has been done for easy appeal though.

Guest Mon 04 May 2015, 9:33 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:I don't know anything about Portuguese law, candy, so I can't give you a definitive answer. But a book written for entertainment and profit isn't the same thing as the official files of a police investigation. Moreover, as far as I can see, GA has been ordered to pay damages that may well be less than his profit from the book and other activities, so you could argue that he has still made money from his campaign

But this was not a book written for "entertainment and profit". It was written to stop the damage to his own reputation. It says so on Page 1.

Chop Suey on Toast Mon 04 May 2015, 9:37 pm

mabossa ritchie wrote:For someone who doesn't know anything about Portuguese law why go on ad nauseum about why Amaral was wrong to write the book? Do you really think Amaral wrote the book for entertainment?

1 It's a moral issue as well as a legal one. Imo he overstepped the mark by a long way. But regarding the law: you don't don't have to know anything about Portuguese law to recognise that the court awarded damages against him. That's a fact. Those who are saying that the judge was wrong are the ones who need to back up their argument with references to Portuguese law, not me
2 The book had to be "entertaining" for potential readers to want to buy it, and there are many posters on here who seem to have been entertained for years by the free translations of it online
3 Resistor - if it was written just to protect his own reputation, why did he keep the profit? But it isn't relevant anyway, there were other ways he could have gone about it beside writing a book

**candyfloss** Mon 04 May 2015, 9:46 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
mabossa ritchie wrote:For someone who doesn't know anything about Portuguese law why go on ad nauseum about why Amaral was wrong to write the book? Do you really think Amaral wrote the book for entertainment?
1 It's a moral issue as well as a legal one. Imo he overstepped the mark by a long way. But regarding the law: you don't don't have to know anything about Portuguese law to recognise that the court awarded damages against him. That's a fact. Those who are saying that the judge was wrong are the ones who need to back up their argument with references to Portuguese law, not me
2 The book had to be "entertaining" for potential readers to want to buy it, and there are many posters on here who seem to have been entertained for years by the free translations of it online
3 Resistor - if it was written just to protect his own reputation, why did he keep the profit? But it isn't relevant anyway, there were other ways he could have gone about it beside writing a book

What I am saying is how can a lower court overturn a ruling that went right to the top i.e. the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. That makes a total mockery of the system..... what is the point of wasting all that money going through appeals, finally winning, only to have a lowly civil court judge overrule it..... I would then, in that case demand all my costs back for those previous cases!! The appeal will sort it all out I am sure.

Guest Mon 04 May 2015, 9:52 pm

I am presuming he "kept the profit" as he was more or less forced out of his job, and had to find another source of income.

Certainly, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself. I made the request several times, but it was never heard. I, therefore, scrupulously respected the rules of the police judiciaire and I refrained from making any comment. But this goes without saying: I experienced that silence to which I was constrained as an attack on my dignity. Later, I was removed from the investigation. It was then that I understood that it was time to speak. To do that, I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely.

However, the purpose of this work is more important: to contribute to finding the truth so that justice can finally be done in the investigation known as the "Maddie case." Truth and justice are two values strongly anchored within me, which reflect my profound beliefs: they always guided the work I did for the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they continue to inspire me and to be present in my life.

In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the police judiciaire or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events - always with respect for the law - and, of course, to relevant enquiries.

The only objective of a criminal investigation is the search for truth. There is no place for the "politically correct."

**candyfloss** Mon 04 May 2015, 10:21 pm

Weren't all his earnings from the book and bank accounts frozen, and all his assets too including his retirement home which according to the paper he bought 10 years ago, before this case.

Guest Mon 04 May 2015, 10:27 pm

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@caricature

Abused if far too strong a word. My interpretation is that because of his position and publishing the book only 3 days after the files were released, reduced his right to freedom of expression.

I guess in layman's terms.......she is saying he took the piss. I don't have any idea if freedom of expression can be reduced like this though?

I still think this has been done for easy appeal though.

Play on words,he used his position in the judges opinion,which is what she presumably used to pass judgement.

TheTruthWillOut Mon 04 May 2015, 10:36 pm

caricature wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@caricature

Abused if far too strong a word. My interpretation is that because of his position and publishing the book only 3 days after the files were released, reduced his right to freedom of expression.

I guess in layman's terms.......she is saying he took the piss. I don't have any idea if freedom of expression can be reduced like this though?

I still think this has been done for easy appeal though.

Play on words,he used his position in the judges opinion,which is what she presumably used to pass judgement.

My bold. Aren't judges supposed to judge on facts? Or should I start study

?

Guest Mon 04 May 2015, 10:40 pm

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
caricature wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@caricature

Abused if far too strong a word. My interpretation is that because of his position and publishing the book only 3 days after the files were released, reduced his right to freedom of expression.

I guess in layman's terms.......she is saying he took the piss. I don't have any idea if freedom of expression can be reduced like this though?

I still think this has been done for easy appeal though.

Play on words,he used his position in the judges opinion,which is what she presumably used to pass judgement.

My bold. Aren't judges supposed to judge on facts? Or should I start ?

Well yes,no 81 of proven facts.

81. As a result of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's statements in the book, the documentary and interview with the Morning Post, the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish, concern, having suffered insomnia and lack of appetite.

mabossa ritchie Mon 04 May 2015, 10:53 pm

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
mabossa ritchie wrote:For someone who doesn't know anything about Portuguese law why go on ad nauseum about why Amaral was wrong to write the book? Do you really think Amaral wrote the book for entertainment?
1 It's a moral issue as well as a legal one. Imo he overstepped the mark by a long way. But regarding the law: you don't don't have to know anything about Portuguese law to recognise that the court awarded damages against him. That's a fact. Those who are saying that the judge was wrong are the ones who need to back up their argument with references to Portuguese law, not me
2 The book had to be "entertaining" for potential readers to want to buy it, and there are many posters on here who seem to have been entertained for years by the free translations of it online
3 Resistor - if it was written just to protect his own reputation, why did he keep the profit? But it isn't relevant anyway, there were other ways he could have gone about it beside writing a book

Deleted
You can barely hide your glee at the predicament of Mr Amaral.
Respect for the forum prohibits me from expressing my true contempt however keep in mind the words of Churchill as posted today on the "gofundme"site:
"The truth is incontrovertible.Malice may attack it,ignorance may deride it,but in the end ,there it is."

I hope Mr Amaral takes comfort in his hour of need in knowing many people here believe in him.

TheTruthWillOut Mon 04 May 2015, 10:54 pm

It is ridiculous though caricature.

GA could counter sue for the exact same things stated in 81 with things stated by Kate in 'madeleine'.

I don't know if the PT system is just this bad or just can't handle the juggernaut McCann. This will (like last time) ultimately go on to the supreme court and be overturned (again).

Guest Mon 04 May 2015, 10:59 pm

TheTruthWillOut wrote:It is ridiculous though caricature.

GA could counter sue for the exact same things stated in 81 with things stated by Kate in 'madeleine'.

I don't know if the PT system is just this bad or just can't handle the juggernaut McCann. This will (like last time) ultimately go on to the supreme court and be overturned (again).

Quite agree,but at the moment the judgement is there.

crabbit Tue 05 May 2015, 4:55 am

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
mabossa ritchie wrote:For someone who doesn't know anything about Portuguese law why go on ad nauseum about why Amaral was wrong to write the book? Do you really think Amaral wrote the book for entertainment?
1 It's a moral issue as well as a legal one. Imo he overstepped the mark by a long way. But regarding the law: you don't don't have to know anything about Portuguese law to recognise that the court awarded damages against him. That's a fact. Those who are saying that the judge was wrong are the ones who need to back up their argument with references to Portuguese law, not me
2 The book had to be "entertaining" for potential readers to want to buy it, and there are many posters on here who seem to have been entertained for years by the free translations of it online
3 Resistor - if it was written just to protect his own reputation, why did he keep the profit? But it isn't relevant anyway, there were other ways he could have gone about it beside writing a book

Here is a fact for you Chop Suey, the go-fund-me is now at £8,000 and due to your offensive and shameful post my friends and I will make a further donation.

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 7:48 am

crabbit wrote:Here is a fact for you Chop Suey, the go-fund-me is now at £8,000 and due to your offensive and shameful post my friends and I will make a further donation.

Joining a debate where issues have not been proved can never be either offensive or shameful. That's the reason for debating. Are you saying that GA's version of events is 100 per cent correct, and that he has demonstrated its accuracy to the point where it was acceptable to go into print?

**Freedom** Tue 05 May 2015, 8:16 am

Here's my two penn'orth worth - the expression that Kate should have used in relation to her daughter, but that's another story - on the subject.

There can be nobody who has never made a mistake about anything in their life. Okay, we've probably all met someone who thinks they haven't!

So while I'm not saying that Mr Amaral and his former colleagues got things 100% right, I don't feel that he had any choice than to put his side of the story to counterbalance the appalling things being said by the British media.

dogs don't lie Tue 05 May 2015, 8:29 am

Yep, if you haven't read the police files who knows what the people would be thinking of GA, but with this going on, a hell of a lot more people will want to know now. That's great!

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 8:32 am

Freedom, I'm disappointed that some contributors have taken offence at my suggestion that the book was a step too far. As I have already said, I admire GA for his attempts to work out what happened. However I have two issues with the book:

1 I don't believe you should go into print with serious accusations without absolute proof. Imo that lost GA the advantage of the high moral ground
2 Some posters appear to be fixated by the book like a religion even though significant elements of it may be wrong

On the second point, clinging to the belief that GA's theory is correct may prevent you from considering other options

I don't believe that his explanation works, because there's too much to cram into a one hour window - 9pm-10pm on May 3. Ok, it's just my opinion, but imo his book works better if you extract the facts from his hypotheses and see what other possibilities there might be

As I see it, sticking rigidly to his version of events is likely to draw you away from actually happened rather than towards it. That isn't a criticism of him, just a personal disagreement with his conclusion

Regarding the British media, their reporting of this case has indeed been shocking, and I now regard everything written in every newspaper, and broadcast on every TV and radio station, as being unreliable unless shown to be true

**candyfloss** Tue 05 May 2015, 8:40 am

I don't believe that his explanation works, because there's too much to cram into a one hour window - 9pm-10pm on May 3.

Sorry, but where do you get the 1 hour from? Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 5.30 pm?

chirpyinsect Tue 05 May 2015, 9:14 am

candyfloss wrote:

I don't believe that his explanation works, because there's too much to cram into a one hour window - 9pm-10pm on May 3.

Sorry, but where do you get the 1 hour from? Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 5.30 pm?

Sorry to butt in here but how can we be sure that witness was truly independent?
GA was working to a certain set of beliefs at that time. He was removed from the case after only 4 months and left his job in 2008 to write his book. He should therefore, have been subject to the same secrecy laws that apply to all PT citizens, so he should not have been party to any further information or theories that were being formulated. Even if he was he couldn`t use them.
His book is based ( and could only be based) on the facts as per the files and the opinion of the PJ at the time. Anything else would have deservedly brought about a libel case. And he would have lost. The fact that the libel case was thrown out proves he was within his rights to write it and the highest court in the land overturned the banning. None of that can be in dispute. And yet a lower court judge has spoken.

We have no idea what GA thinks now after years of studying the theories that abound. Nor have we any idea what the PJ may have uncovered since reopening the case.
All of us have our own thoughts on what happened and we would also be sued if we were to commit them to public scrutiny for stating those thoughts as facts.

We have seen the worst of humanity in this case and we are currently seeing the best side of it. Goncalo was defending his honour. He used the facts as they were known at that time and whether we think he got it a bit wrong or he was 100% correct, matters not because it is not us with our bonkers conspiracies and unproven theories that face financial ruin. It is a man who stood up for justice. How many of us would do that?

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 9:24 am

candyfloss wrote:Sorry, but where do you get the 1 hour from? Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 5.30 pm?

9pm-10pm is crucial because the T9 were at dinner
If M knowingly died earlier in the evening, I find it hard to believe that all 9 would have turned up at the tapas bar (though I realise that some of you will disagree with that suggestion)
If M died during the meal, the body wouldn't have been there long enough for Eddie to detect
GA's strong reference to Smithman is a further complication because it doesn't seem to be the right time or location to be carrying the body
So for me the 9pm-10pm timeline is a problem

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 9:30 am

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Sorry, but where do you get the 1 hour from? Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 5.30 pm?
9pm-10pm is crucial because the T9 were at dinner
If M knowingly died earlier in the evening, I find it hard to believe that all 9 would have turned up at the tapas bar (though I realise that some of you will disagree with that suggestion)
If M died during the meal, the body wouldn't have been there long enough for Eddie to detect
GA's strong reference to Smithman is a further complication because it doesn't seem to be the right time or location to be carrying the body
So for me the 9pm-10pm timeline is a problem

Smithman to my mind is a distraction,he was meant to be seen but not recognised I believe and it becomes to much of a distraction but its the why I can't come up with,or as someone said confusion is good.All opinion.

Guest Tue 05 May 2015, 9:35 am

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Sorry, but where do you get the 1 hour from? Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 5.30 pm?
9pm-10pm is crucial because the T9 were at dinner
If M knowingly died earlier in the evening, I find it hard to believe that all 9 would have turned up at the tapas bar (though I realise that some of you will disagree with that suggestion)
If M died during the meal, the body wouldn't have been there long enough for Eddie to detect
GA's strong reference to Smithman is a further complication because it doesn't seem to be the right time or location to be carrying the body
So for me the 9pm-10pm timeline is a problem

Perhaps you should start a thread about why you think Dr Amaral is wrong and what your theory is, instead of de-railing other threads, particularly one where the majority of posters want to leave messages of support, not nit-pick their way through theories and opinions, which are just that, theories and opinions

dogs don't lie Tue 05 May 2015, 9:38 am

If this was a staged abduction, IMO, the mcs would have to go to the tapas at 8:30 to keep in line with the routine?

Chop Suey on Toast Tue 05 May 2015, 9:41 am

susible wrote:Perhaps you should start a thread about why you think Dr Amaral is wrong and what your theory is, instead of de-railing other threads, particularly one where the majority of posters want to leave messages of support, not nit-pick their way through theories and opinions, which are just that, theories and opinions

Apologies, I didn't realise that this was a one-sided conversation. I've pointed out where his theory falls down, but still people continue to worship it as if it were the truth. Unfortunately, it's probably at the expense of the actual truth

dantezebu Tue 05 May 2015, 9:42 am

susible wrote:
Chop Suey on Toast wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Sorry, but where do you get the 1 hour from? Madeleine was last seen by an independent witness at 5.30 pm?
9pm-10pm is crucial because the T9 were at dinner
If M knowingly died earlier in the evening, I find it hard to believe that all 9 would have turned up at the tapas bar (though I realise that some of you will disagree with that suggestion)
If M died during the meal, the body wouldn't have been there long enough for Eddie to detect
GA's strong reference to Smithman is a further complication because it doesn't seem to be the right time or location to be carrying the body
So for me the 9pm-10pm timeline is a problem

Perhaps you should start a thread about why you think Dr Amaral is wrong and what your theory is, instead of de-railing other threads, particularly one where the majority of posters want to leave messages of support, not nit-pick their way through theories and opinions, which are just that, theories and opinions

I agree Susible, but he/she wont.
CSOT re the bit in colour, why do you find that so hard to believe? Rudy Guede was seen out dancing hours after he murdered Meredith Kercher.

Sponsored content